As I stated in response to the comments (mostly from Left-of-Center internet personalities across TN) beneath ACK's post:
I love Dems and Libs telling me/Evangelicals that I/we need to get all judgmental and moralistic and unforgiving.
I and others have said that Stanley is unqualified–by our standards, to serve in the state senate. Any ambivalence on the issue reflects the very real tension between idealism and pragmatism in the political realm. A candidate/official’s character is difficult to assess, and the ultimate objective in choosing elected officials is the implementation of wise public policy, not selecting role models.
For me, these events engender feelings of betrayal and disdain toward Stanley and his ilk within my Party, and though this post by ACK is attractive like an auto accident, and though this information seems to affirm all my worst sentiments/conclusions about Stanley, I’m not sure that the article/post is altogether relevant. Unless our purpose is to provide more opportunities for Liberal tongue-clucking and discordant moralizing about hypocrisy.
17 comments:
It's not an indictment of us to point at our sinners and say "AHA!". Duh. That's why we need a savior.
People sin. I got it. I'm all for reparations. I'm all for working through your issues after you resign. However, the left seems to have absolutely no grace for the right's past sins and demands that WE never allow for repentance and restoration to take place despite those being fundamental to our faith. Jesus said "Go and sin no more". However, left demands that WE keep those folks on the cross. And in doing so understands at a basic level that "the wages of sin is death". Thankfully, there's a second half to this verse: "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord".
I hope Stanley get's it right this time.
Thanks for the comment Kay. This whole resign/not resign debate is complicated. I remember in 1996 how I was >this close< (you should see how close my fingers are together) to printing a batch of bumper stickers that said "Gore '97."
I guess commission of a crime is where I (and society) must draw a line for elected officials, but the decision to claim an office holder's metaphorical scalp is multi-layered.
the left seems to have absolutely no grace for the right's past sins
You just don't get it, Kay.
Stanley explained to all that his 'faith and church' require him to 'promote abstinence' and 'when you’re married, there’s a commitment there.'
You don't see why such behavior makes this overtly hypocritical? Why is it always seem that it's the Larry Craigs and Mark Foleys and Mark Sanfords that are always sooo moral in what they say and not do? You don't see Democrats espousing their 'superior family values' even though the blue states have much lower rates of divorce and teen pregnancy, while the conservative states have higher divorce rates and consume more porn. You conservatives are a pathetic and conflicted bunch.
William,
Why you been hiding your identity? I guess it kind of takes the shine off of your, "My work here is done" post after Bush lost in 2008, (oops, he wasn't running, but whatever)?
I know you were addressing Kay's comment, but the fact that Stanley was or is a hypocrite is only marginally relevant to the issue of what is the best public policy. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's one thing to promote traditional values and another to claim "superior family values." Indeed, it's ironic that you and yours pooh-pooh traditional values every chance you get but want to congratulate yourself for practicing traditional values. Talk about pathetic and conflicted.
William: "...even though the blue states..." Aren't you espousing the left's superior family values with your comment?
And that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with.
OK. He's a hypocrite. I'll grant you that. They're all over Capitol Hill unfortunately.
I'm not giving Stanley a pass. I think having an affair makes a politician unfit for public office. If his wife can't trust him...neither should we.
it's one thing to promote traditional values and another to claim "superior family values." Indeed, it's ironic that you and yours pooh-pooh traditional values every chance you get
Huh? Traditional conservative evangelical values you say?
Stanley, a member of Christ United Methodist Church where he serves as a Sunday school teacher and board member of their day school, says that he "didn't believe young people should have sex before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to him, and he wants to promote abstinence."
Do those values also include beating his former wife?
Or how about financial responsibility? Did you happen to know that Stanley works as a financial adviser for the Stanford Financial Group, whose founder, Allen Stanford, has been charged with orchestrating an $8 billion scam?
Them's some great evangelical values... all you have to do is ask God to forgive and you're clean again!
William,
Hypocrisy is better than libertinism. Otherwise we throw the baby out with the bathwater, morality-wise. I have no respect for Stanley--an "overt" hypocrite, and I have little respect for you, an "overt" libertine and a moral relativist. Ironically, you're one of the most moralistic and condemning persons in TN's blogosphere, and I'm guessing that you "value" tolerance and compassion and empathy?
You have to be either a moral relativist or a denialist to be a Republican voter. They supported a moral values president who lied and tortured. No universal standard exists to Republicans. If a Republican lies and tortures, it's ok... unless you're in denial of reality.
Even if every Conservative office holder or candidate were a hypocrite and a scoundrel, his/her policy would still be wiser than your policies, William.
You're a moralistic boor.
FYI, I am female, my name isn't William. Second, I wouldn't expect anything less from you than to tout your superior morals. That IS the jist of the point made here. Actions speak louder than words. For the moral values people and politicians they support, it's all talk, major hypocrisy. Thank you for proving my point.
Well, Wilhemina I'm going to guess that some male authority figure in your life was a hypocrite and you haven't healed from that. If the goal is to get well from that experience and have a happy and productive life it might be better for you to spend your time with a professional therapist than on blogs venting your spleen.
We can't make that situation right. And pointing out all the dirty bastards in the world won't change you or the world. Making sure that hateful cancer in side of you is excised can. I hope you get the help you need.
Stanley deserves forgiveness for this. Democrats who have affairs with interns are hypocritical, immoral adulterers whose conduct exposes them for what they are. Republicans who do so are good, decent God-fearing people who simply made a mistake that should not overshadow their honorable character and strong moral convictions.
You're not William? Does he know that you're using his internet connection?
But this makes sense; the only person I've ever had to ban from commenting was William's old lady, "Elliemay." No more "Anonymous" commienting (sic) . . .
billp,
I didn't say and haven't said that Stanley should be forgiven (by me, at least) or re-elected. That wasn't the point of the post.
That being said, as with Bubba, Stanley's actions disqualify him from public office until further notice, in my opinion. And for the record, I am happy to see the intra party prominence of Democrats for whom adultery is viewed as hypocrisy.
Kay,
The name is Ellen.
Cool psychoanalytical theory! Everyone who doesn't believe - like you - in an ancient religion that subjugates women and attempts to worm it's way into government, must need therapy. Interesting concept.
Ned Williams is the very textbook definition of a moral relativist. Williams proves that for him, no universal standard exists to assess an ethical proposition's truth. He sees moral values as applicable only within his defined political/cultural/religious boundaries.
For example, Ned Williams is essentially a anti-abortion rights/anti-stem cell research kinda guy, yet heartily condones the Bush/Cheney torture policy and so-called 'preemptive war' that has killed many thousands. Pro-life, but pro-death if a Republican says it's ok.
"[H]eartily condones"? Actually, "heartily rebuts histrionic, partisan accusations from moral relativists" would be more accurate. Me and Chucky Schumer (and Nancy Pelosi) agree that there is a little bit of grey area about what constitutes "torture."
And, to be more precise, I should have said "no more anonymous commienting (sic) or commienting by Elliemay." Buh-bye.
"heartily rebuts histrionic, partisan accusations from moral relativists"
That's called 'denial'
Chucky Schumer (and Nancy Pelosi) agree that there is a little bit of grey area about what constitutes "torture."
That's called 'blame somebody else'
Hence the Republican moral relativist authoritarian creed:
Admit nothing
Deny everything
Blame someone else
Bush told the UN that 'the US doesn't torture' and 'leads by example' in the same year he authorized torture, one year after a prisoner was tortured to death. Fact.
Alas, your swan song must come to an end sometime "Ellen."
In fairness, I'll let the debate end there, but I stand by my statements. Fact.
Post a Comment